Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/1984 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of AdjustmentsMl NUTES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Zoning Board of Adjustments January 17, 1984 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman MacGilvray, Members Wendt, Wagner, Upham and Alternate Member McGuirk MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cook and Alternate Member Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Official Kee and Planning Technician Volk AGENDA ITEM N0. 1: .Approval of Minutes - meeting of October 18, 1983 Mr. Upham made a motion to approve the minutes with Mr. Wagner seconding. Mr. Wendt asked if the signage had been worked out for the Ashford Square Subdivision, and Mrs. Kee explained that the Legal Department has gotten involved in the decision, and has determined that the Wendy's lot and the BrazosBanc lot are separate building plots, and therefore, are entitled to each have its own detached sign. She further explained that the BrazosBanc already has its sign. Mr. Upham asked if the Legal Department had provided this Board with an explanation, and Mrs. Kee indicated that to date, it had not. Mr. Upham then stated emphatically that he is very upset with the lack of either a written explanation or an explanation in person by the City Attorney .after the Legal Department has made a complete reversal of a decision made by this Board, He went on to say this has happened more than once and he is tired of having this Board's rulings reversed without any kind of explanation for the decision, or any additional guidelines being given to the Board for consideration in the future. Mr. MacGilvray and Mr. Wagner each agreed that guidelines are needed, and if explanations are not provided, this Board feels it is being ignored and has become completely useless. Mr. Wendt indicated that even with the type of transcript provided, it would be hard to make a decision without even a telephone call to the Board members for their thoughts concerning the action the Board has taken. Mr. Upham said he would like to pass a Resolution to condemn the City Attorney for incon- sideration. Mr. MacGilvray stated that he believed this should be handled under other business, and then called for votes on the motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1 (McGuirk abstained). Mr. Upham then made a motion to pass a resolution to condemn the City Attorney for lack of consideration of Board's action regarding Agenda Item #4 on the October 18, 1983 agenda. Mr. Wagner suggested that perhaps this type of action would put the Board on the same level as the City Attorney. Mr. Upham agreed this might be so, and then withdrew his motion. Mr. MacGilvray asked if the Board would accept an amended resolution, and the Board agreed. He offered the motion to request that the City Attorney provide this Board a full explanation of his unilateral action concerning Agenda Item #4 of the October 18, 1983 meeting, and that he meet with this Board at the earliest possible time, so that reoccurrence of this "undoing" can be prevented, and he further requests that this meeting be held prior to the next regular meeting of this Board. Mr. Wendt seconded this motion. Mr. McGuirk asked Mrs. Kee if staff can make decisions which are opposite from the de- cisions of this Board and Mrs. Kee explained that in this case, after lengthy conversa- tions with the Legal Department, she had felt comfortable issuing the Building Permit ZBA Minutes 1-17-84 page 3 • number of employees who will be in the building, and 47 of these spaces can be provided - at the hotel site, which would leave the office 48 spaces short. Mr. McGuirk asked if our Zoning Ordinance has been drawn from other models and Mrs. Kee said that in all probabi lity, It was. Mr. McGuirk asked tf she was aware of any problems in cities with similar ordinances, and Mrs. Kee said that in reading published material recently pertaining to this type of project, the trend seems to be leaning toward shared parking, as that better utilizes both land and facilities. She further pointed out that our Zoning Ordinance should take into account the possibility of mixtures of uses with different peak hours of operation in the future. Mr. McGuirk said that. he simply had no feel for an adequate number of parking spaces for a project of this nature, and the zoning ordinance in effect does not address the issue. Mr. Mac Gllvray agreed that there are many grey areas in the ordinance, and these areas primarily are the ones this Board 1s required to address, and the Board's charge is to either uphold the ordinance or to grant a variance; and the point here is that this project is 95 spaces short, half of which can be .provided next door, leaving a total shortage of approximately 48 spaces. Mr. Upham said that in his opinion this is another example of too much building on too little land. Mr. MacGilvray said the Board must consider any unique or special conditions of the land, to which Mr. Wendt speculated that there is a creek which runs between the two projects and would exemplify a unique condition of this land as neither project can get any more land because of it. J. W. Wood was sworn in and explained that the ordinance requires 1 parking space per 300 sq. ft. plus 1 for every 2 employees, and herein lies the problem. In an office build- ing approximately 80% of the people in the building are employees, so he questioned just what the 1 space for each 300 sq. ft. is for. He stated that he believes this ordinance • requires double parking for office buildings. He then asked if he could provide informa- tion concerning parking requirements in other cities, stating that Dallas requires 1 space per 333 sq. ft. with a crossover parking agreement for 50% of the required spaces, if one of the projects is closed. Mr. Upham pointed out that he said "closed" and not "during a slow period". Mr. Wood continued saying that Ft. Worth requires 1 space per 400 sq. ft., Houston has no parking requirements and leaves the number up to the people who own the building. He also .pointed out that this is the extreme end of the spectrum, and that he would not advocate this policy. Corpus requires 1 space per 250 sq. ft. up to 20,000 sq. ft., then 1 per 400 sq. ft. with shared parking allowed for up to 50% of the required parking if it is located within 300 feet of the property. He said the Hilton project has 431 spaces and this project has 360 spaces, giving a total of 791 spaces on this block. He also said that Mr. Upham's point about attendees is well taken, and that the Hilton plans some type of shuttle to and from other po1nts. Mr. MacGilvray asked if capacity of 2000 people for the convention center is an accurate figure and Mr. Wood said he really did not know now, but that he had done some of the initial work on the hotel and seemed to remember that there would be approximately 500 restaurant seats. Mrs. Kee offered the information that there would be 500 seats available in restaurants and clubs, with 5000 sq. ft. in meeting rooms. Mr. MacGilvray asked if there would be an additional banquet room and Mrs. Kee said she did not know, but perhaps It would be lumped with the meeting rooms. Mr. Upham speculated that there could be upwards to 1000 salesmen in a big room for a meeting at one time. Mr. Wendt likened that possibility to the 100 Year Flood Plain, stating that this type of convention would be one in 100, and would not be happening 5 days a week. Mr. Wood stated that the shopping center he is involved with across the street has lots of extra parking which-might be used for overflow. Mr. Upham agreed that in that area, • there is probably more parking available than would be needed for a long time in the future, but that he is not sure this is a solution. Mr. Wendt said he thinks that staff ZBA Minutes 1-t7-84 page 4 has a good point concerning the different peak time uses but the Zoning Ordinance does • not address this. Mr. MacGilvray said that the current ordinance was written for smaller projects and does not address this type of project, and this Board would have to make a motion to approve on unique and special conditions of the land, and is forging new ground and once again the City Attorney is not here to help. Mr. Upham said the Attorney had given the Board general guidelines, but now it has to forge ahead without any legal help. Mr. Wendt asked the exact location of the creek and Mr. Wood pointed it out. Mr. Mac- G1lvray asked if the creek prevents more parking spaces and Mr. Wood said yes, but for the hotel lot more than this project, and then speculated that the unique characteristic of this property is the proposed plan., crossover parking (also unique) and it can work. Mr. Wendt Bald that in his opinion, with the increase in land value, the City will be faced with more of this. Mr. MacGi1vray agreed, but added that the ordinance should be revised to allow this. Mr. Wood sa1d lenders will govern requirements, and said that Aurora, Colorado requires l space per 500 sq. ft., but lenders are trying to get 1 per 300 sq. ft. nationwide.. Mrs. Kee said that in her opinion, 1 per 300 sq. ft. would be ample. She then referred to Section 11.6.1 of the ordinance, and read, "...To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the Zoning Official in the enforcement of this ordinance " as being part of this Board's powers, further saying that Mr. Wood may be approaching this project under this section, adding that an ordinance cannot be all en- compassing and must allow room for interpretation. Mr. Wendt stated that the Board is making an interpretation of 1 per 300 sq. ft., plus employee parking, and that Mr. Wood is contending that this is a double parking requirement because 80% of the people in the office building will be employees. Mr. Wood answered various general questions about the uses of the building, offering the information that • the building wit) be 10 stories in height. Mr. Wagner stated that this is the third time this Board has been faced with brand new problems, therefore the case is a unique and. special condition, but if the Board votes on this, it must carry forward the importance of getting the ordinance changed. He went on to say that he attends a lot of conventions in his work and that most people fly in and further that he rarely has seen 2000 cars at a 2000 person convention. Mr. MacGil- vray said he would love to do a study; that he thinks there are more parking spaces in this town than there are cars, and he thinks the current ordinance has led the City to this position. Mr. Wagner said he would like to make a motion to authorize a variance to the parking requirement (Section 7) from .the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts: That the development in itself represents a unique and special condition, there being none other like it In the City and therefore (2) no ordinance covering parking requirements for this type of development exists, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hard- ship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitations: There be an enforceable, shared parking agreement acceptable to the City. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacGilvray. Votes were cast and the motion carried unanimously (5-0). AGENDA ITEM N0. 4: Other Business • Mr. Upham made a motion that staff must address this issue and make the necessary provisions to cover the issue in the ordinance, and until that time no other similar variances will ZBA Minutes 1-17-84 page 5 be heard before this Board. Mr. MacGilvray seconded this motion and after general dis- • cussion concerning how this could be addressed in the ordinance, the mot-ion carried unanimously (5-0). Mr. Wood then offered from the floor, that a good source of informa- tion concerning this is the hotel industry iste1f, because they have their own standards. No further business was discussed. Mr. Wagner made a motion to adjourn with Mr. McGuirk seconding. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). • • ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION Variances: From Section 11-8.5 1 move to authorize a variance to the yard (6-G) lot width (Table A) lot depth (Table A) sign regulations (Section 8) \~~ minimum setback (Table ,Q) l~- parking requirements (Section 7) from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, du e to the following unique and special conditions of the land not normally found in like districts• - 3. is i~ G ~ ~ 5• ~llv' __ j_ l I v , . . ~~ - 6. - _ --- and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: and such that the spirit of this Ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done, subject to the following limitatt ns: 1 . ~{,~.~ z . ~~ I~'~-~ ~l C~~'~ ~ ~v fit 3• U u 4. This motion was mad by Seconded .by The variance was granted by t following vote:~j _~ l ZONING BOARD OF gDJUSTMENT GUEST REGIISTER ''// • DATE ~/ t/~'~ `~ ~ ~~ NAME 1. 2. i• ADDRESS ~~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.